Why do the candidate endorsements have star ratings?

A worker prepares voting booths at the Metropolitan Multi-Services Center in Houston in 2014.

Photo: CODY DUTY, PTR / New York Times

What do the stars mean?

The quality of candidates on the ballot varies widely from race to race. At times, both candidates are good choices. At times, there are no good choices to be had. Still, the Houston Chronicle editorial board's policy is to avoid co-endorsements or non-endorsements. Why? Because in the end voters have to vote. They have to make the hard decision. So should we.

As such, we may end up endorsing a mediocre candidate. We may end up not endorsing an excellent candidate. Not all endorsements are equal. That's one reason why we're adding an extra dimension to our endorsements this year by ranking candidates on a five-star system. Star rankings can help voters easily compare candidates across different races.

These ratings are specific to each individual race — a five-star judge might make for a two-star representative. A candidate who impresses one year might fumble in the next election.

★★★★★ Five-star candidates are the best of the best. These rare politicians truly embody public service, wisdom and integrity. They understand the issues, take their jobs seriously, work effectively to get things done, care about the people involved and won't be distracted by partisan gamesmanship. They have the political courage to do the right thing, even when it's unpopular. Whether Republican or Democrat, these are candidates who deserve universal support.

★★★★☆ Four-star candidates are hard-working, accomplished and all-around impressive. She may be a longtime incumbent who has become respected in her position or a newcomer with the resume, skills and attitude to truly make a difference in his district.

★★★☆☆ Three-star candidates meet the basic standards and qualifications for the job. They are baseline contenders. Perhaps a first-time candidate giving an earnest effort or an established politician with an underwhelming list of accomplishments. While there's nothing very wrong with a three-star candidate, there's nothing particularly remarkable, either.

★★☆☆☆ Two-star candidates have a noticeable flaw — or three. There's the new candidate for state representative who doesn't actually understand the position he's pursuing, the judicial candidate with a paltry legal resume, the self-serving incumbent who should have been kicked out of office years ago, the politician who promotes national partisanship over local needs — the list goes on. Party preference may lead voters to back two-star candidates, but the public deserves better.

★☆☆☆☆ One-star candidates are the worst of the worst. These people have been indicted for corruption, pander to xenophobia or overall embody the worst traits of contemporary partisanship. Whether Republican or Democratic, none of these candidates deserve your support.